SARASWATI PACHHAT VARGA SAMUDAYIK SAHAKARI FARMING SOC v. COLLECTOR BANASKANTHA

#.(cid:9)Mr.Jhaveri has contested the petition and has supported the orders made by the authorities below. He has submitted that the said orders have been made after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society. It is not even the case of the petitioner Society that they have not been afforded an opportunity of hearing. Mr.Jhaveri has particularly relied upon the finding recorded to the effect that the impugned grant was made to the petitioner Society on the misleading facts supplied by the petitioner Society and the concerned Talati-cum-Mantri. He has also relied upon Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and has disputed that the petitioner Society is in possession of the land in question. #.(cid:9)It would not be out of place to mention that the fact that all the members of the petitioner Society are not engaged in agricultural operations and that some of them had, at the time of grant, lands of their own, has been tacitly accepted by the petitioner Society.

The petitioner Society before this Court agreed that the grant made in its favour may be reduced to 60-Acres and to make representation to that effect to the State Government. However, Ms.Shah candidly admits that no such representation is made by the petitioner Society. #.(cid:9)The question, whether the grant of land to the landless persons belonging to the backward classes can be said to be a public purpose or not, is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of BHUPATBHAI OGHADBHAI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [1996(1) GLR 600] and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of PANCHAYAT VARGA SHARMAJIVI SAMUDAIK SAHAKARI KHEDUT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND ORS. v. HARIBHAI MEVABHAI AND ORS. [AIR 1996 S.C. 2578] have held that such allotment of the land is indeed a utilization for public purpose. Further, it is well accepted proposition of law that the land assigned for one public purpose can be utilized for some other public purpose.

Hence, in my view, the land released from the reserved forest for the purpose of 'gaucher' could have been legitimately granted to the petitioner Society for cooperative farming. #.(cid:9)In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 29th June, 1990 made by the State Government in Revision Application No.22/89 and order dated 31st March, 1989 made by the District Collector, Banaskantha in Remand Case No.1/86 are quashed and set aside. However, as observed hereinabove, the learned advocate Ms.Shah has admitted that all the members of the petitioner Society were not entitled to grant of land under the above referred order dated 6th July, 1978. She has further admitted that pending these proceedings, several of such members have taken up employment and have not been cultivating the land. In that view of the matter, the interest of justice demands that the order of grant made on 6th July, 1978 made by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur is reconsidered.

It is, therefore, directed that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur or any other officer authorized in that behalf shall, within six months from today, reconsider the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner Society made on 6th July, 1978. Such officer shall examine the relevant facts in respect of each of the members of the said Society and determine the number of such members who could have been granted land for cultivation under the prevalent Government instructions. #.(cid:9)The area of the land granted to the petitioner Society shall be reduced keeping in view the number of members of the petitioner Society who are found to be eligible for such grant. As far as the possession of the land in question is concerned, the same is a disputed question of fact which can not be decided in this petition. It is, therefore, directed that so long as the order of grant dated 6th July, 1978 is under reconsideration by the respondent Authority, the parties to this petition shall maintain status quo as regards the possession of the land in question. Rule is made absolute to the above extent and subject to the above directions. The parties shall bear their own cost. (cid:9) (cid:9)( Ms. R.M.Doshit, J. ) /sakkaf (cid:9) (cid:9)